Galaxy: 55-45

It seems Galaxy has settled into a three-week polling pattern, compared with Newspoll’s fortnightly, ACNielsen’s monthly and Roy Morgan’s weekly (usually – they seem to have taken last week off) UPDATE: Sorry, it’s actually been four weeks since the last Galaxy – the previous three were three weeks apart. Today’s Galaxy survey has Labor leading 55-45 – still narrower than other recent polls, but a slight correction from its quirky 53-47 of three weeks ago. Despite the flak Galaxy copped last time, respondents were again asked a question about Labor’s union connections. They were also asked if the Prime Minister was “addressing problems in Aboriginal communities because of the upcoming federal election or because he really cares about the problem”. All revealed here.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

314 comments on “Galaxy: 55-45”

Comments Page 7 of 7
1 6 7
  1. Anyone who thinks Beazley would have stood a better chance than Rudd of beating Howard this time around really is kidding themselves. Look and listen to the evidence around you.

  2. Labor’s vote is soft is an obvious each way bet for any pollster. I haven’t seen any signs of softness myself in the figures unless you count the meaningless one or two point bounces between polls. I don’t detect a whole lot of change in the atmospherics in the last couple of months.

  3. Ok then, that’s the first poll in July over and done with, and another putative poll bounce for the government – budget effect – on its way to being debunked.

    What’s the next milestone? Is there even one left that isn’t suspiciously lapine?

  4. I know it’s off topic, but someone above made the bizarre, if not callous, comment that Iraq wasn’t a real war as the belligerent force (ie the US)had ‘only’ lost 3500 soldiers.

    You forget the 26 000 wounded personnel, many crippled for life.

    It’s like the carnage on the roads – proportionately fewer die as cars/air bags etc are more robust. Similarly, the US has extraordinary equipment, bombs from out of enemy range etc, especially relative to the guerillas they face.

    Try telling the 30 000 families that a war without a rationale makes sense.

  5. Or else I’m just not silly enough to jump on a bandwagon.

    Or interpret opinion polls a la Dennis Shanahan, as you do Gary.

  6. Leopold, I too question your assumption that Labor’s change of leadership has given Howard a lifeline, compared with Beazley.

    True, the 2PP under Beazley was motoring along quite nicely, but the primary support was very mediocre – low 40s at best. Since the change, the primary has been up around 47-50%.

    Surely that is evidence that a lot of voters wanted to vote Labor, but it wasn’t until Rudd took over that they thought they had a credible alternative.

    I know that Rudd doesn’t appeal to you personally, but I respect your general knowledge of polling. What do you base the assumption on?

  7. The initial bounce (3% or less on the 2PP) was evidence that a change of leader boosts your support. Happened to Peacock in 1989, to Downer in 1994 and to Rudd in 2006.

    The further surge in March has happened in just about every ‘election’ year since 1992.

    As to the primary vote – I agree Beazley was depressing the Labor primary vote, but IMHO, not in any way that damaged electoral chances. Most (at this point, just about all of it) of Rudd’s increased PV has not come from the Coalition, but from Green and Other; as such, I think it’s mostly Labor supporters who didn’t like Beazley but would have (at least) preferenced him anyway.

    In terms of my reasoning as to Rudd being a less likely winner, there are a whole range of points, but the two main ones (don’t want to take up space) are: a) Rudd is not ‘known’ as Beazley was and b) he is expected to win. I think both of those will cost Labor votes at the ballot box (they may also inflate opinion poll results – new + bandwagon effect), and will reinforce the inevitable effects of the Coalition scare campaign.

  8. How depressing it is that you people create my Friday night entertainment!

    1. Rudd is a mini Howard, and therefore ‘acceptable’ to the middle classes
    2. Howard should have retired at 10.
    3. The Liberal Party in NSW is seen as dysfunctional
    4. One poll loss is a mistake, seven on the trot is careless
    5. Nelson has cost the Government untold votes by telling the truth
    6. Because of point “3”, traditional donors are in hiding
    7. As a life long Liberal, even I am looking forward to voting Labor!

  9. Look Possum Comitatus – Kate Ellis sits where she does because she’s in a marginal seat (though its probably quite safe now) and not because of her looks. Clearly the most attractive female SA politician (with the obvious except of Natasha) is Penny Wong! Damn She’s fine! Though yes in the H of R Kate Ellis probably the best Labor has to offer. Certainly in SA they like their female pollies HOT why else would Amanda have suddenly disappeared from the scene?

    Howard will not just sit back and watch the coalition loose. He’ll concoct some scheme to get back. Maybe arrange ASIO to blow up a bin at APEC like they did at that Commonwealth Summit?

    Look even if Labor wins they definitely won’t have control of the senate. If all states are split 3 Labor 3 Coalition then labor will need coalition support to pass bills. If very few senate seats are taken from the coalition and given to FF or the Greens then if the coalition were to disapprove of a bill that labor proposed then they would need both these minor parties support to get it through. However wouldn’t it be easier for labor if rather than needing support from both FF and the Greens they only needed support from one of them? FF would need like 4 or 5 wins- impossible. Therefore putting aside politics and focusing purely on math’s (of which I am not very confident that my own claims are solid) wouldn’t it be easier for labor to only have to seek Greens approval of bills if the coalition were to appose? Thus won’t labor give the Greens preferences and give up on the BULL$@T of giving FF preferences as they occasionally did last time? A Double Dissolution in 2008… maybe

    Anyway my VERY optimistic prediction after carefully examining each seats demographics is this- Labor: 73, Coalition: 72, Greens: 3, Independents 2.
    Although Labor could show its true colours and enter a grand coalition or there could be defections between the major parties I think Labor’ll enter a deal like they did once upon a time in Tasmania and we will see the beginning of a better world!

  10. Molotov,

    The experience of the Victorian Labor Party with the Greens almost holding the balance of power in the Legislative Council is good reason for a federal Labor Government not to want to be dependent on the Greens in the Senate. The Victorian Labor Party would be better off with two DLP MLCs and two Green MLCs rather than the one DLP and three Greens there are at present. A government is in a stronger position when it is not dependent on any one other party for the success of its legislative program. A federal Labor Government would appreciate the flexibility of choosing the Greens to get some laws through and Family First to get others through.

    I think the discussion is academic for reasons I have explained before. Labor cannot win the Senate this time. Indeed, it is almost impossible for Labor and the Greens combined to get a majority there. This means a double dissolution, and then the Greens can hope for the balance of power.

  11. ….I think having the Greens hold the Balance of Power would suit Labor as they would be able to play the Conservatives off against the looney left and make themselves look like the natural middle ground (dare I say representatives of the ‘forgotten people’).

    Hold on – I think we’re in for a bumpy ride.

  12. Chris Curtis Says:

    July 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    Labor cannot win the Senate this time. Indeed, it is almost impossible for Labor and the Greens combined to get a majority there. This means a double dissolution, and then the Greens can hope for the balance of power.

    The DD question-

    The prospect of a DD has been raised several times here by various contributors- the dominant view being that a DD appears to be almost inevitable. William could I suggest a separate thread on this issue be created, pre-empted by any poll information that can be presented on the Senate Election for 2007 (if it hasn’t already been done before now).

    We could start the discussion with views on the following premises that I have gleaned from my review of what some well respected blogger’s here and elsewhere have mooted-

    1. The Democrat vote is expected to collapse in 2007, and their remaining four Senate seats go to either Labor or the Greens (WA, SA, QLD, VIC).
    2. If this premise (1) occurs, the combined Senate seat representation of Labor/Greens will increase from 32 (28 Labor: 4 Greens) to 36, 3 short of a (combined) Senate majority of 39.
    3. Family First won a Senate seat in 2004 which is not up for re-election in 2007. Therefore, the ALP/GREEN combination would have to win 3 Seats from the Coalition to gain a (combined) Senate majority (39).
    4. There will be only one seat ‘up for grabs’ in each State/Territory in 2007. If we take for granted that WA, SA, QLD and VIC are already accounted for (premise 1), the 3 Coalition seat losses would have to occur in NSW, TAS or the Territories (ACT/NT).
    5. Since 1975, the ACT has elected one Liberal and one Labor Senator. I haven’t come across anyone prospecting any change to this 30 year history in the ACT. I will assume the status quo will remain in the ACT after the 2007 Election.
    6. In the NT, the same habits have occurred, with the electorate voting in one Labor and one CLP senator for a long time. However, it is not ‘impossible’ that a change could occur and the NT is far more ‘vulnerable’ to change than is the ACT.

    Given these premises (6), a DD appears to be very likely, unless Labor/Greens can win 3 senate seats from the Coalition, one each in NSW, Tasmania and the NT. 2 seats would not be enough because the hostility between FF and the Greens is palpable and unworkable.

    So, what are Labor/Green prospects of picking up a Senate seat in NSW, Tasmania and/or the NT ?

  13. STROP,
    I have responded on the Senate on “Morgan; 59-41” in the hope of consolidating the discussion on the most recent thread rather than have discussion continue intermittently on threads that pretty soon will disappear from the first page.

  14. Thanks Chris, Ill go see. PS: My pre-emptive ‘opinion’ is that it wont happen; the Green candidate may have a shot in the NT, but Labor is very unlikely to win an extra seat in NSW and even less likely to do so in TAS despite the expected ‘claw back’ of Labor primary votes in TAS which were lost via Latham’s Foresty stuff up.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 7 of 7
1 6 7